BBC names Myhill website complainant

Personally i think it is fine for this to be reposted here form the BBC website. I do not think it is fine to harrass anyone that you do not agree with.
I am concerned about the statement in the BBC report that there were "repeated and significant concerns raised by former patients,"
The reason i am concerned by his is because i have supported Dr.Myhill on the understanding from her supporters that none of her patients have ever complained about her. Am i now to believe that this is not true?
For the record i have had testing done with Dr.Myhill and her advice has been very helpful to me.

Click to expand...

Hi,

Just on this point alone,my belief is that the BBC quote is a misquote from the proceedings. The actual quote was:

“There are repeated and significant concerns raised by former patients, medical practitioners and other members of the public”. The repeated and significant only applies to the medical practitioners and members of public.

A late complaint was received by a patient, who complained about EPD and elimination diet making him/her worse in 1996, I believe. Dr Myhill has not seen this complaint and probably won't until she receives all the paperwork from GMC and it is anonymous anyway.

Just on this point alone,my belief is that the BBC quote is a misquote from the proceedings. The actual quote was:

“There are repeated and significant concerns raised by former patients, medical practitioners and other members of the public”. The repeated and significant only applies to the medical practitioners and members of public.

A late complaint was received by a patient, who complained about EPD and elimination diet making him/her worse in 1996, I believe. Dr Myhill has not seen this complaint and probably won't until she receives all the paperwork from GMC and it is anonymous anyway.

Click to expand...

Has to be noted - when is a complaint to the GMC NOT 'significant'? And how often does a complaint need repeating to be counted as 'repeated'?

Highly value judgement type words being used there. This sort of thing is when a text starts looking less factual and more ideological. You have to question the level of GMC investigating rigour if they are the ones putting out that sort of account (it's had to have come from somewhere. The BBC may only be working off a press release remember.)

Thanks Craig for clarifying that point about patient complaints. My sense was that the reporting was not accurate.
What a horrible mess this all is. I have watched the same thing happening in Britain to independant midwives who put their necks on the linefor their patients, they usually end up being hounded out of the proffession for misconduct. This is a similar scenario, with the NHS gunning for anyone who doesnt fit in with their flawed belief system.

Did Jones name Dr Myhill? Did Jones shame her? Did his actions lead to harassment of her? Did his actions lead to unpleasant things? Does being repeatedly referred to in foul, sexist, abusive language by his mates on the Bad Science forum count as hate mail?

I would like to believe he discussed his concerns with his fellow professional before taking any action.

I would like to believe he knew something about Dr Myhill or something about ME/CFS and considered the full consequences of his actions before sending his email.

I would hate to think he was just "having fun".

That would be sick and irresponsible behaviour, if he thought the whole thing was a big joke, wouldn't it?

Click to expand...

Hi Mark

I didn't know how to understand your post, so I had to google a bit to make sense of it - and found the mentioned forum where this Stuart Jones, aka Jonas, is bragging about his denunciation of Dr Myhill to the GMC.

I've read it yesterday, and was completely appalled.

Apologies for my naivity, expressed in my previous posts, to assume that grown-up people would act with integrity and responsibility when it comes to such a serious matter.

I didn't know how to understand your post, so I had to google a bit to make sense of it - and found the mentioned forum where this Stuart Jones, aka Jonas, is bragging about his denunciation of Dr Myhill to the GMC.

I've read it yesterday, and was completely appalled.

Apologies for my naivity, expressed in my previous posts, to assume that grown-up people would act with integrity and responsibility when it comes to such a serious matter.

That a member of the BS forum has behaved as Stuart Jones has is an important part of the picture, the case, if you like.

My particular problem with BS is the selective outrage and scepticism they display. Big honchos or aspiring ones on the BS forum would, it appears, never officially complain (or even consider on the forum) about the abuses against ME/CFS patients (using psychiatric measures), or the Lightning process. They are certainly not equal opportunity sceptics. So, they are either unable to understand the scientific and ethical problems in psychogenic explanations and their treatments (which means they are not the brightest stars in the heavens and don't really understand science), or possibly are acting as ostriches to avoid the inevitable cognitive dissonance, or there is a failure of courage going on.

Whatever the Myhill issue is about, Insignificount, you are failing to understand the real issue here, which is the psychogenic dismissal and abuse of ME/CFS patients using LUDICROUS claims, fallacious reasoning, and bad science to do so, and how that NEVER gets tackled by the likes of the BSers, or the medical establishment, or the government. Myhill has now been taken away from patients she was helping, who now will be stuck with the option of dangerous treatments, or nothing at all, or looking for someone else, until that person too is ruined by the full might of a Jonas thinkey-likey on his coffee break.

Go back to BS and say that - then watch the meme of the "crazy PR forumites" and "stupid woman Angela Kennedy" get propagated, again. They'll do anything but try and understand the issues. I know that the BS forum is not a homogenous membership - but the big cheeses on there, the aspiring big cheeses, and the little helpers, are the ones who direct the ethos, if you like, of that group of people. Something is rotten there, and I think it's cognitive dissonance, failure of courage to tackle Bad Science when it's state authorised, or inability to understand Bad Science when it's 'tainted' by social science and the humanities ( a key problem in psychogenic explanations for example), possibly all three. This matters because of things that happen as a result, like Jonas and his bull-headed mission and its actual effects on patients (let alone Myhill), and their ongoing pronouncements from ignorance about CFS patients, which are all extremely damaging.

Jonas acted from a position of ignorance, possibly with wilful disregard for the consequences for others. He has caused catastrophe for many people over issues which are uncertain at best. There are so many other people, who do real harm to patients, that he could have gone after if he was in the mood for crusading, and his behaviour on the BS forum inflamed matters even more. He cannot escape criticism for that, much as might think he should and BS high-fives he gets.

The complaint about the website was not the first one -- this predates back to 2005.

The GMC gave these reasons for suspending Myhill's licence for 12 months. A lot of reasons have nothing to do with the complaint from Jonas/Stuart -- he is a useful scapegoat but the real issues are between Dr Myhill and the GMC.

1. website and the contents therein, including, the recommendation that patients obtain prescription only medication (PoM) from untested, unmonitored and unapproved overseas sources bypassing qualified registered medical practitioners either on the NHS or privately;
2. the medical treatment of patients remotely and without face to face, or any, consultation, examination or history taking;
3. continuing to act in a unprofessional manner notwithstanding the formal warning given to you by the GMC in 2005;
4. your promotion of clinically unsubstantiated treatments to vulnerable patients;
5. your promotion of personal opinions in relation to nutrition, use of oral contraceptive medicines, patient investigation specifically breast biopsy, and advice in relation to vaccinations;
6. your failure to engage with approved medical practice and appropriate continuing medical education;
7. using your status as a registered medical practitioner to reinforce your personal beliefs and to promote private treatments;
8. your potential failure to recognise and work within the limits of your competence;
9. your disregard for the conditions imposed by this Panel;
10. the potentially serious limitation on your insight into your fitness to practise and the consequences of your actions; especially in light of your correspondence with and behaviour towards both your professional regulator and the IOP;
11. your breach of interim conditions, specifically that you failed to notify an organisation contracting with you to undertake medical work;
12. your attempts apparently to circumvent, or having the effect of circumventing, the conditions restricting your prescribing practice and restricting the information you were allowed to publish on your website;
13. your lack of familiarity with the principles of Good Medical Practice and of modern up to date medical treatments;
14. your ability to practise safely;
15. your general understanding and awareness of the effect your attitude, behaviour, and conduct has on others and on the profession;
16. your comprehension and perception as to the consequences of your actions in relation not only to professional colleagues, and patients but to the general public; and
17. the provision by you of medical care which may fail to meet the requirements of Good Medical Practice.

KJM....do you have access to Dr Myhills response and defense to this list of allegations? I hope that since the GMC has made their charges publicly available, they have made the defendants response available as well.

KJM....do you have access to Dr Myhills response and defense to this list of allegations? I hope that since the GMC has made their charges publicly available, they have made the defendants response available as well.

Click to expand...

No. The entire transcript of what occurred at the IOP has not been published yet. The GMC does make the transcripts of the IOP's public -- should be available at some point next week. Dr Myhill has not yet responded to the allegations -- taking a few days to regroup.

2. the medical treatment of patients remotely and without face to face, or any, consultation, examination or history taking;

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure she does take histories of her patients... kind of hard to diagnose or treat anthing without doing so. If it's not always face to face, that's because it's in keeping with the severity of some of them but I wouldn't expect the GMC to "get" that bit.

There are plenty of cases in medicine where "unsubstantiated" treatments are used by clinicians, sometimes to save lives, there was one in the news not long ago. Is "pacing" clinically substantiated or isn't it? It's been officially ceded to even by the NICE guidelines, despite having very search into it. CBT/GET has a lot more research but with very "poor" results and a much greater barrage of complaints from patients than Jonas et al (and lets be clear people like him HAVE been leading the witchhunt) could ever dream of getting. This is just rhetoric.

5. your promotion of personal opinions in relation to nutrition, use of oral contraceptive medicines, patient investigation specifically breast biopsy, and advice in relation to vaccinations;

Click to expand...

If doctors aren't allowed an opinion of their own what good are they? The end of clinical freedom indeed, welcome medical fascism. The GMC/NHS had better watch -- this is the best advert for privitised medical care could ever hope for. NHS doctors have grown arrogant with their captive market and don't like the threat of patients' choice, too bad.

Though I don't know what the details of this claim are, the same could be said of 99% of doctors whom a pwME is confronted with, at least in regard to "continuing medical education" as it pretty much stops with Chalder et al laughng behind patients' backs or prescribers' journal advising "pond life".

promote private treatments;

Click to expand...

Private doctors aren't allowed to promote private treatments? That sounds very odd. Yet it's just swell that NHS doctors promote quackery like LP and NLP because kids have a "different prognosis"? Isn't there a name for different rules for different groups?

in light of your correspondence with and behaviour towards both your professional regulator and the IOP;

Click to expand...

Sound they don't like it when someone defends themselves...

15. your general understanding and awareness of the effect your attitude, behaviour, and conduct has on others and on the profession;

Click to expand...

The exaggerated anecdotal claims about patients aside, the vast majority of patients seem happy enough with her, and the couple of ME/CFS ppl whose complaints I heard basically consist of "my ME/CFS got worse" -- if you're going to suspend doctors for that, surgeries all over Britain will be empty (and many in the US too), even some of the few good ones. I expect it's the profession doesn't like a mind of it's own, again. Why not go over the complaints about the psychosocial "fatigue" clinics?

I left out stuff that had too little detail yet or was clearly waffle.

BTW I'm not a patient of hers but have bought some of her supplements -- oh dear I hope I haven't been furthering a great evil. I don't agree with 100% of everything she says but I don't see how most of these claims can be justified except through tendentious, professional bullying.

The complaint about the website was not the first one -- this predates back to 2005.

The GMC gave these reasons for suspending Myhill's licence for 12 months. A lot of reasons have nothing to do with the complaint from Jonas/Stuart -- he is a useful scapegoat but the real issues are between Dr Myhill and the GMC.

1. website and the contents therein, including, the recommendation that patients obtain prescription only medication (PoM) from untested, unmonitored and unapproved overseas sources bypassing qualified registered medical practitioners either on the NHS or privately;
2. the medical treatment of patients remotely and without face to face, or any, consultation, examination or history taking;
3. continuing to act in a unprofessional manner notwithstanding the formal warning given to you by the GMC in 2005;
4. your promotion of clinically unsubstantiated treatments to vulnerable patients;
5. your promotion of personal opinions in relation to nutrition, use of oral contraceptive medicines, patient investigation specifically breast biopsy, and advice in relation to vaccinations;
6. your failure to engage with approved medical practice and appropriate continuing medical education;
7. using your status as a registered medical practitioner to reinforce your personal beliefs and to promote private treatments;
8. your potential failure to recognise and work within the limits of your competence;
9. your disregard for the conditions imposed by this Panel;
10. the potentially serious limitation on your insight into your fitness to practise and the consequences of your actions; especially in light of your correspondence with and behaviour towards both your professional regulator and the IOP;
11. your breach of interim conditions, specifically that you failed to notify an organisation contracting with you to undertake medical work;
12. your attempts apparently to circumvent, or having the effect of circumventing, the conditions restricting your prescribing practice and restricting the information you were allowed to publish on your website;
13. your lack of familiarity with the principles of Good Medical Practice and of modern up to date medical treatments;
14. your ability to practise safely;
15. your general understanding and awareness of the effect your attitude, behaviour, and conduct has on others and on the profession;
16. your comprehension and perception as to the consequences of your actions in relation not only to professional colleagues, and patients but to the general public; and
17. the provision by you of medical care which may fail to meet the requirements of Good Medical Practice.

Click to expand...

Stuart Jones is no scapegoat, and as IamME has shown, these 'complaints' against Myhill are risible, because by your logic, Jones's logic, the GMC's logic, they should apply to every NHS doctor in the country dealing with ME/CFS patients.

The situation is ludicrous, and this action brought about by Jones has harmed Myhill's patients. Does he (or you) think he can avoid challenge and criticism for his acts, avoid accountability? "Scapegoat". That is hilarious.

I know certain people are trying to avoid dealing with it, but the rank inconsistency in the GMC's approach, Jones's and others' crusade, the BS threads on Myhill, is the elephant in the room here.

The bottom line here is that there are no effective medical treatments for ME on the NHS (regardless of what the NICE & GMC may claim). The 'rehabilitation' strategies offered have been nothing but a thorn in the side of patients for far too long and have not been abolished even when patients have gone to court to testify to their ineffectiveness and great harmfulness in many cases.

It is therefore not surprising that patients turn to doctors who are prepared to think for themselves, to look a little further afield and to act on behalf of their patients, (rather than on behalf of the reputation of the medical profession - subtle difference). What does the GMC expect? 'Nature abhors a vaccuum' and all that. Dr Myhill is fulfilling a desperate need.

8. your potential failure to recognise and work within the limits of your competence;

Click to expand...

There is so much to laugh at (if if all weren't so horrible) but I especially love number 8.

Your Potential failure to recognise? They are suspending a persons' license to practice based on their potential to fail? To fail to recognise?
The whole tapestry seems to have been weaved of desperation and contempt. I stand by my resolution that the GMC itself must be taken to task.
Dr M really really needs a solicitor now.

Just a point on the BBC statement: Dr Myhill recommended vitamin and magnesium injections for suspected chronic fatigue syndrome, a treatment an expert said had "no clinical or biochemical basis" taken from the BBC article.

Intravenous or transdermal magnesium DOES have a clinical and biochemical basis in CFS: magnesium is a good antagonist of NMDA receptors. There are indications that NMDA receptor overactivity (leading to excitotoxicity) may be part of the picture of CFS/ﬁbromyalgia.